Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.

There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols.

You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know?

Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists.

But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact.

Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake.

However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time.

Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most.

As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.

Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down.

Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake,  you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake.

Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit.

Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science.

All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence.

All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning.

We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning.

Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.

Let's say I agree with all you said, such ability is also found in descriptions of the Greek mythology or the Quran or many other religions. What I asked, and you seem to be avoiding the question over and over, is how do you know which God it is because if it's not the God from the Bible and it is the God from the Islam you will go to hell for believing in the wrong God, so I'm going to ask you again, how can you be certain that your God is the real God, do you have any evidence at all? Don't avoid the question again.

The title topic is about the scientific proof that God exists. The answer to your question is easy and straight forward. The true God is the God that science proves to exist.

The real God may be worshiped in one or many religions, as well. Or He may not. My opinions and ideas about which, if any, religion worships the scientifically proven God, are not part of this topic. And, they are private until such a time that I want to express them.

The real God is the one that science proves exists... as I have shown at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.



EDIT: Thanks for telling us that Greeks, Islam and other religions have scientific proof for the existence of God. I have never seen such proof in religions. Would you be kind enough to point out where the Greeks express the scientific proof that God exists?

You said describing, the Bible does not have any scientific proof for the existence of God either, those links you keep posting are supposedly the proof of God, the bible does not have them. What you said is that the bible contains descriptions of a God and so does the greek mythology and any other religion.

Your links do not prove directly that there is a God, you said yourself that everything is programmed, right? How about this, maybe we live in a program simulation, that's what your evidence also points out to, maybe we are simply a simulation and that's why everything is programmed.

You don't want to express your ideas because you have none. You worship the God from the Bible because that's how you were brought up to believe. You have literally 0 evidence or proof to demonstrate that the god from the bible is in fact the real God and you choose to believe it. You try to be scientific but then when it comes to the Bible you don't even know what to say. You also said in other posts that science proves the records in the bible are true and honest, you didn't respond to that either.

[1714949532]

1714949532

[Horacewoodwood]

Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.

There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols.

You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know?

Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists.

But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact.

Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake.

However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time.

Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most.

As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.

Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down.

Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake,  you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake.

Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit.

Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science.

All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence.

All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning.

We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning.

Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.

Welcome back to episode 7 of our masterful fool Badecker who keeps making more stupid statements as time goes by. We could say that the entropy of his stupidity is increasing and it will soon reach total entropy, but we can actually observe a decrease in his entropy because he is transporting his stupidity to his forum. Why? Because Badecker's brain is not an isolated system, his stupidity is allowed to flow on the internet, thus decreasing the entropy of his system's stupidity. In this episode, Badecker proudly presents us with his unheard, wonderful news: the universe had a beginning. Clap, clap, everyone, this one is as sharp as a bowling ball. I wonder if he found that by himself or maybe he was inspired by some scientific nobodies that studied, observed and proved that a long time ago. Anyway, let's get back to our subject who actually admits that 'We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job.' I mean, few people are so dumb to do anything to prove God exists and fuck everything up with only one true sentence. I almost lost my breath and I was ready to admit that Badecker is actually a smart guy if he would've stopped there. But he couldn't, because he is not a smart guy. The idiot went right ahead to tell us how the cause must have had knowledge, tremendous understanding and the, this one is magnificent, the ABILITY TO BE ABLE (ahahahahaha) to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion and intelligence for thousands of years through the ages, following the beginning. So, as all religious apologists believe, it's all about us. Fuck the rest of life on this planet, fuck the splendor and greatness of the universe, cause and effect is for us, it was all made for us so we can get out in the morning, take a shit, drink a coffee and sell hotdogs for the game. Also, you can see how Badecker believes human species have been around only for 'thousands' of years, because that's what the 'scientific proven' bible tells him. Of course he could research a bit and find out that we're talking about 6 million years, but those must be lies told from the scientist that refuse to prove God because they have an unknown issue...all of them, as Badecker believes. Let us all be good fellas and not tell Badecker the estimated age of the universe, he might have a heart attack. He ends his post by saying 'Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.'...ain't that smart? We, the ones who could never understand God, could define him and describe him as the creator of the universe, the cause, but the problem is we do not have those abilities. Of course, the Bible only says that God is all knowing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It does not actually say that God had great knowledge of nuclear fusion, photons, entropy, etc. But let's assume they did not know about all of these and go straight to our description of the creator. He first created heaven (let us assume it's the universe) and earth. He then made day and night with the help of light...wait for it. Second day, God creates the sky. We shall assume they are talking about the atmosphere. God then goes on and makes land, water and plants. Fourth day, God creates the Sun, earth's primary source of light and after that, all the rest of the stars and planets in the universe. Smart guy, heh? You know why he did it? So men, the ones that were not yet created, could track time. That's it, that's their only purpose. Day five, God makes all the creatures that live underwater (all, including plants, he forgot some) and all of the birds (no insects, fuck the birds, they can starve) and he also blesses them. These were the first blessed living beings because fuck plants. Day six, God creates all of the other living beings and man. Man was special so he made him in his image after he talked himself into it (a bit psycho), blessed him and told him that all of that belongs to him and he must subdue it to rule over it. He also told that everything is good to eat, including plants. Later on, he changed his mind about the eating thing (not quite a perfect plan, right?). Seventh day, he went to rest and that is it. What Badecker does not understand is that we are not claiming we could have done it better (although I know some people who, if superpowers existed, would have), but if you observe the universe and if you also research about earth age and universe age, there is a huge inconsistency in God's story. The universe does not seem to have been created that way, earth was most surely not created in the same instant as the universe was, etc. So God has very little understanding of our universe he claims to have created. Why is that? Because the people who came up with the story had a very little understanding of the world that they were living in, because they actually did use the stars to measure time, they did not know light comes from the sun, they thought the sun and the moon are there to distinguish between day and night. So this is how our mentally challenged Badecker makes undocumented, dumb proofs again, making a fool out of himself. I know this got long and it is hard to read but it was a pleasure for me to prove the stupidity of our apologist. Stay tuned for episode 8, he won't stop as I can see.

[Astargath]

Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.

There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols.

You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know?

Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists.

But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact.

Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake.

However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time.

Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most.

As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.

Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down.

Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake,  you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake.

Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit.

Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science.

All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence.

All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning.

We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning.

Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.

Welcome back to episode 7 of our masterful fool Badecker who keeps making more stupid statements as time goes by. We could say that the entropy of his stupidity is increasing and it will soon reach total entropy, but we can actually observe a decrease in his entropy because he is transporting his stupidity to his forum. Why? Because Badecker's brain is not an isolated system, his stupidity is allowed to flow on the internet, thus decreasing the entropy of his system's stupidity. In this episode, Badecker proudly presents us with his unheard, wonderful news: the universe had a beginning. Clap, clap, everyone, this one is as sharp as a bowling ball. I wonder if he found that by himself or maybe he was inspired by some scientific nobodies that studied, observed and proved that a long time ago. Anyway, let's get back to our subject who actually admits that 'We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job.' I mean, few people are so dumb to do anything to prove God exists and fuck everything up with only one true sentence. I almost lost my breath and I was ready to admit that Badecker is actually a smart guy if he would've stopped there. But he couldn't, because he is not a smart guy. The idiot went right ahead to tell us how the cause must have had knowledge, tremendous understanding and the, this one is magnificent, the ABILITY TO BE ABLE (ahahahahaha) to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion and intelligence for thousands of years through the ages, following the beginning. So, as all religious apologists believe, it's all about us. Fuck the rest of life on this planet, fuck the splendor and greatness of the universe, cause and effect is for us, it was all made for us so we can get out in the morning, take a shit, drink a coffee and sell hotdogs for the game. Also, you can see how Badecker believes human species have been around only for 'thousands' of years, because that's what the 'scientific proven' bible tells him. Of course he could research a bit and find out that we're talking about 6 million years, but those must be lies told from the scientist that refuse to prove God because they have an unknown issue...all of them, as Badecker believes. Let us all be good fellas and not tell Badecker the estimated age of the universe, he might have a heart attack. He ends his post by saying 'Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.'...ain't that smart? We, the ones who could never understand God, could define him and describe him as the creator of the universe, the cause, but the problem is we do not have those abilities. Of course, the Bible only says that God is all knowing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It does not actually say that God had great knowledge of nuclear fusion, photons, entropy, etc. But let's assume they did not know about all of these and go straight to our description of the creator. He first created heaven (let us assume it's the universe) and earth. He then made day and night with the help of light...wait for it. Second day, God creates the sky. We shall assume they are talking about the atmosphere. God then goes on and makes land, water and plants. Fourth day, God creates the Sun, earth's primary source of light and after that, all the rest of the stars and planets in the universe. Smart guy, heh? You know why he did it? So men, the ones that were not yet created, could track time. That's it, that's their only purpose. Day five, God makes all the creatures that live underwater (all, including plants, he forgot some) and all of the birds (no insects, fuck the birds, they can starve) and he also blesses them. These were the first blessed living beings because fuck plants. Day six, God creates all of the other living beings and man. Man was special so he made him in his image after he talked himself into it (a bit psycho), blessed him and told him that all of that belongs to him and he must subdue it to rule over it. He also told that everything is good to eat, including plants. Later on, he changed his mind about the eating thing (not quite a perfect plan, right?). Seventh day, he went to rest and that is it. What Badecker does not understand is that we are not claiming we could have done it better (although I know some people who, if superpowers existed, would have), but if you observe the universe and if you also research about earth age and universe age, there is a huge inconsistency in God's story. The universe does not seem to have been created that way, earth was most surely not created in the same instant as the universe was, etc. So God has very little understanding of our universe he claims to have created. Why is that? Because the people who came up with the story had a very little understanding of the world that they were living in, because they actually did use the stars to measure time, they did not know light comes from the sun, they thought the sun and the moon are there to distinguish between day and night. So this is how our mentally challenged Badecker makes undocumented, dumb proofs again, making a fool out of himself. I know this got long and it is hard to read but it was a pleasure for me to prove the stupidity of our apologist. Stay tuned for episode 8, he won't stop as I can see.

Yes funny as usual. The people that wrote the bible were very ignorant. For example, they think the sky is heaven and it's something out of reach, we obviously know today that there is no heaven in the sky and it's just the atmosphere. If they knew at the time what the universe was, they would have written that God and heaven is far in the universe but of course they didn't. They also use very silly stories, for example, the babel tower to explain why there are different languages. People were building a tower with it's top in heaven and God decided to stop them and the best way of doing it is to make them speak different languages. If you don't think that's the stupidest shit ever I'm sorry for you.

Perhaps god was angry again for some reason and turned some people into black people, asian and other races just because why not.

[laiducnam]

It appears from Ezekiel 28.

[stats]

Welcome back to episode 7 of our masterful fool Badecker who keeps making more stupid statements as time goes by. We could say that the entropy of his stupidity is increasing and it will soon reach total entropy, but we can actually observe a decrease in his entropy because he is transporting his stupidity to his forum. Why? Because Badecker's brain is not an isolated system, his stupidity is allowed to flow on the internet, thus decreasing the entropy of his system's stupidity. In this episode, Badecker proudly presents us with his unheard, wonderful news: the universe had a beginning. Clap, clap, everyone, this one is as sharp as a bowling ball. I wonder if he found that by himself or maybe he was inspired by some scientific nobodies that studied, observed and proved that a long time ago. Anyway, let's get back to our subject who actually admits that 'We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job.' I mean, few people are so dumb to do anything to prove God exists and fuck everything up with only one true sentence. I almost lost my breath and I was ready to admit that Badecker is actually a smart guy if he would've stopped there. But he couldn't, because he is not a smart guy. The idiot went right ahead to tell us how the cause must have had knowledge, tremendous understanding and the, this one is magnificent, the ABILITY TO BE ABLE (ahahahahaha) to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion and intelligence for thousands of years through the ages, following the beginning. So, as all religious apologists believe, it's all about us. Fuck the rest of life on this planet, fuck the splendor and greatness of the universe, cause and effect is for us, it was all made for us so we can get out in the morning, take a shit, drink a coffee and sell hotdogs for the game. Also, you can see how Badecker believes human species have been around only for 'thousands' of years, because that's what the 'scientific proven' bible tells him. Of course he could research a bit and find out that we're talking about 6 million years, but those must be lies told from the scientist that refuse to prove God because they have an unknown issue...all of them, as Badecker believes. Let us all be good fellas and not tell Badecker the estimated age of the universe, he might have a heart attack. He ends his post by saying 'Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.'...ain't that smart? We, the ones who could never understand God, could define him and describe him as the creator of the universe, the cause, but the problem is we do not have those abilities. Of course, the Bible only says that God is all knowing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It does not actually say that God had great knowledge of nuclear fusion, photons, entropy, etc. But let's assume they did not know about all of these and go straight to our description of the creator. He first created heaven (let us assume it's the universe) and earth. He then made day and night with the help of light...wait for it. Second day, God creates the sky. We shall assume they are talking about the atmosphere. God then goes on and makes land, water and plants. Fourth day, God creates the Sun, earth's primary source of light and after that, all the rest of the stars and planets in the universe. Smart guy, heh? You know why he did it? So men, the ones that were not yet created, could track time. That's it, that's their only purpose. Day five, God makes all the creatures that live underwater (all, including plants, he forgot some) and all of the birds (no insects, fuck the birds, they can starve) and he also blesses them. These were the first blessed living beings because fuck plants. Day six, God creates all of the other living beings and man. Man was special so he made him in his image after he talked himself into it (a bit psycho), blessed him and told him that all of that belongs to him and he must subdue it to rule over it. He also told that everything is good to eat, including plants. Later on, he changed his mind about the eating thing (not quite a perfect plan, right?). Seventh day, he went to rest and that is it. What Badecker does not understand is that we are not claiming we could have done it better (although I know some people who, if superpowers existed, would have), but if you observe the universe and if you also research about earth age and universe age, there is a huge inconsistency in God's story. The universe does not seem to have been created that way, earth was most surely not created in the same instant as the universe was, etc. So God has very little understanding of our universe he claims to have created. Why is that? Because the people who came up with the story had a very little understanding of the world that they were living in, because they actually did use the stars to measure time, they did not know light comes from the sun, they thought the sun and the moon are there to distinguish between day and night. So this is how our mentally challenged Badecker makes undocumented, dumb proofs again, making a fool out of himself. I know this got long and it is hard to read but it was a pleasure for me to prove the stupidity of our apologist. Stay tuned for episode 8, he won't stop as I can see.

Yes funny as usual. The people that wrote the bible were very ignorant. For example, they think the sky is heaven and it's something out of reach, we obviously know today that there is no heaven in the sky and it's just the atmosphere. If they knew at the time what the universe was, they would have written that God and heaven is far in the universe but of course they didn't. They also use very silly stories, for example, the babel tower to explain why there are different languages. People were building a tower with it's top in heaven and God decided to stop them and the best way of doing it is to make them speak different languages. If you don't think that's the stupidest shit ever I'm sorry for you.

Perhaps god was angry again for some reason and turned some people into black people, asian and other races just because why not.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Once again another masterful chapter.

Keep them coming!

[BADecker]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

[Horacewoodwood]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

Episode 7.5:

Our idiotic hero was pretty fast. Although science works with truth, our brainless subject hopes that the inconsistencies in the books that gave birth to his God can be unseen. Here is his stupidity, opened up on the surgery table: He is a religious man, he learned about God and Jesus from other religious people, preachers, the Bible, etc. If those elements would not have existed, we can most surely claim he would not have believed in God, at least not the christian one. We can say those religious elements are the cause and his belief is the effect, most surely not the other way around. He believes in the teachings of that God, which are found in those books, because the only 'evidence' of the christian God are the old and the new testaments, based on revelation, on God showing up to someone and speaking out loud. Otherwise, those people could not have known about God's will, the way he created everything, his teachings, etc. In science, if the very basis of something is incorrect, inconsistent or a lie, any further research on the basis of those inconsistencies is also wrong. To be more exact, if the whole revelation, the bible, everything that counted as fundamental for christianity is incorrect, so would be the scientific proof of that specific God, and all because you started from something that is not true. Here is the even funnier part: from time to time, Badecker switches from religion to science, it depends on his will. He is acting like a little God on this topic, it's in his blood. If he would believe the Bible stories, he would have no problem with them being confronted here, it's for the scientific proof's sake. But he doesn't, he can't. He can't put science and religion together, because they do not work together, they contradict, and science works while religion doesn't. So he tries to separate himself from his weakness, religion, and take only on the 'scientific' part. What is really stupid and he doesn't even realize how stupid it is, is that I rebutted his argument that 'God has all those abilities as described and defined by us' in the most scientific way it could ever be rebutted. God's description and definition only lays in that same book that he denies so much in this conversation. That description of God's abilities and the story of how he created everything simply does not work with science, science says completely something else. But the fact that he only saw religion in a scientific rebuttal is understandable, he is a religious apologist. Also, a round of applause is necessary for the dear imbecile, he is part of those common retards that call 'science' a religion. Basically, he is so stupid he does not even know what religion actually means. We'll be back for episode 8 as soon as he replies with some dumb shit again! Thank you for reading folks, our retard will not let us down!

[Astargath]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

[BADecker]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

[Astargath]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

[BADecker]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

[Astargath]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

[Horacewoodwood]

Waiting for more substantial shit to come, now he is only arguing, nothing special. We need him to claim some new stuff, those are always dumb as fuck. Work on boyz!

[BADecker]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

[BADecker]

Waiting for more substantial shit to come, now he is only arguing, nothing special. We need him to claim some new stuff, those are always dumb as fuck. Work on boyz!

Such a short post! Running our of hot air already? Or simply finally coming to believe that God exists? Wish you understood science so that you could KNOW that He exists. Of course, you probably KNOW already.

[Horacewoodwood]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

Interlude:

Here is what our apologist idiot is the best at: Our friend Astargath quoted him from another topic where he said this: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' Whatever our little retard would say, he practically said his theory is shit. He admitted to the fact that cause and effect does not prove God. He also said that cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but we already talked about that stupid claim. However, when confronted with his own words, Badecker acts like a brain parasite infected snake and starts banging his head on the ground going FULL METAL RETARD: 'Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.' I mean, I can't even translate the idea of those sentences, it makes no sense if you put them together, it makes no sense in reply to Astargath. He kind of gets to the idea that Astargath claims that cause and effect can prove God because Astargath told him that he debunked his own theory by claiming that cause and effect does not prove God. It's a mental loophole, a new level of retard, something doctors would be really amazed by. I mean, we might have found the proof that someone can actually live a normal (he has access to internet) life without a functioning brain. Damn, Badecker is even more stupid than we thought. What's lovely is how he sometimes replies to me believing all of these are somehow for him and I would respond back. The poor attention whore apologist really expects people to take him seriously and he still does not understand this thread has turned into 'Proof that Badecker is a complete idiot' until he changes his ideas or just leaves so other people, maybe sane ones, come and take their turn at trying to prove something.

[Astargath]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

[BADecker]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above.

Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted.

[BADecker]

Look two posts up.

The maker of a watch would have to be something that could think and operate with reason. The watch is not like nature. The fact that a watchmaker isn't around, doesn't mean that he does not exist and that he isn't made up of natural substances.

Extend you idea to the point of the watchmaker existing as part of nature, and existing in a far more complex way than the watch.

[Astargath]

It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.

They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes.

Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation.

Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking.

Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links.

Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory.

You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.''

So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument

Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works.

You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it?

The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways:

For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design.

Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”
The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:

I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.
 

Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above.

Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted.

Did I hit you too hard? Is that all you got after I debunked what was left of your proof? Because you debunked cause and effect yourself, I debunked the rest. You also said there is no method that can prove God so thanks again for debunking yourself. My talk above is exactly the same as your machine-like ''argument'' or the Cosmological argument which is a classic argument creationists use.

https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked

You assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it.

You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it.  God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom. Surely God for whatever reason thinks faith is more important than logic, he also sends you to hell for not believing in him which makes total sense, he wants you to kill people if they work on the Sabbath (very moral god) and many more atrocities.